Elementary set theory

  • Thread starter Blackberg
  • Start date
  • #1
29
15
I'm introducing myself to set theory. My reference doesn't seem to address the fact that 1/1 = 2/2 = 1. If we make a correspondence between natural numbers and rational numbers using sequential fractions, should we just skip equivalent fractions so as to make it a bijection? In other words, does it matter whether the correspondance is injective or not, or whether it is surjective or not?

I'm also wondering how one would prove that the set of real numbers in base ten is identical to the set of real numbers in another base.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
35,258
11,510
If you want to make a bijection it is important. If you just want to show there are not more rational than natural numbers, it does not matter.
The reverse statement (there are not more natural than rational numbers) is trivial anyway.

I'm also wondering how one would prove that the set of real numbers in base ten is identical to the set of real numbers in another base.
Numbers do not have a base. You can express a real number in a specific base to write it down, but the number itself is independent of it.
 
  • #3
FactChecker
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,052
2,337
If you are looking for a simple, clean proof, I don't think there is one. It could be done, but it might be a lot of work. You can define the mapping between the real numbers and their representation in any base. Composing the mappings should give you a mapping between the two representations. There might be a lot of tedious complications with infinite length representations like 1 = 0.9999999...are two base 10 representations of 1. Irrational numbers are another complication.
 

Related Threads on Elementary set theory

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
900
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
706
Replies
1
Views
553
Top